An ongoing review of politics and culture

I am having trouble seeing why I should be worked up by the idea that some liberal opinion journalists, policy experts, and MSM reporters maintain an off-the-record email discussion group. Yes, the inclusion of the MSM types is a telling indicator of their actual political sympathies—but we already have a surfeit of evidence for that. Yes, there is some risk that participation in this private conversation will lead its participants to groupthink. But presumably it will have this effect primarily on participants who only socialize with like-minded people and only read ideologically congenial material. Even in those cases, it seems likely to be a relatively unimportant contributor to their closed-mindedness. (The reporters could just make phone calls to like-minded people on their own, right?)

The idea that large-scale off-the-record discussions between like-minded journalists, policy analysts, and advocates are conspiratorial or problematic is rather amusing to me. I’ve spent a bit of time at off-the-record confabs, and let me assure you, what happens at them is almost never conspiratorial (except in the broadest sense that any sort of coordination is a conspiracy) and certainly not worrying — usually, it’s fractious, a little bit boring, mostly an excuse for people to self-promote, riff off of each other, and grouse and gab with friends and colleagues. People go for the free catered food and the company, not for marching orders. I imagine the Journolist is fairly similar, except without the catering. Lots of people on the right and the left, however, persist in confusing this sort of friendly information sharing with some sort of nefarious, mastermind-driven coordination. In my experience, it’s anything but.

Leave a Reply

Yes, but it’s been established that you are in thrall to a certain tall female econoblogger, and that your dubious former connections to an activist organization means that her opinions on the tea parties, the bailouts, the financial crisis, economics and politics are all somehow invalid and conspiratorial. So you’re not to be trusted!

The Politico story cites about half a dozen instances where the folks on JournoList coordinated stories, involving reporters, commentators, and politicians of a leftish persuasion. It seems to me that if you have a problem with the idea that JournoList presents opportunities for this kind of coordination, then you have a problem with the original reporting, not the reaction to it.

Blar, the story you linked to was not the Journolist story, but a different story about liberal journalist/strategist coordination. I didn’t comment on that story at all. But are you talking about this sort of thing?

On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond.

Because that’s exactly the sort of ho-hum thing I’m talking about. The idea that a group of notable writers like to talk to each other, and sometimes use what they talk about as fodder for their writing, is just not a big deal. I mean, I get ideas for posts at TAS from talking to friends at bars, and even from emailing them — sometimes even in groups! Like most people, I probably wouldn’t want every word I write in emails to friends published, but that doesn’t mean that any of this is worryingly conspiratorial.

Fair enough, but don’t you think it’s a little disturbing that all this totally mundane media interaction is dominated by liberals? I certainly understand the utility of a listserv, but the fact that mainstream journalists are so much closer to liberal pundits than their conservative competitors is a bit worrying.

Granted, this story is ridiculously overblown, but do think a conservative blogger could set up a comparable list and receive the same input from mainstream journalists? To a certain extent, I think it would depend on the blogger, but there seems to be an ideological barrier at work here as well.

the fact that mainstream journalists are so much closer to liberal pundits than their conservative competitors is a bit worrying.

Do you think that’s enough to offset the absolute domination of talk radio by conservatives? The domination of conservatives on cable news “debate” shows and newsmagazines? (You know, where a panel will have George Will, Pat Buchanan and David Brooks on it and get sold as “balanced”. And do you think those things are problems? It just seems like conservatives hate inequities in media only when they seem to benefit liberals and not at all when they benefit conservatives.

Two wrongs, as they say, don’t make a right. I also think that print journalists are unique in the sense that they frequently set the agenda for downstream media – blogs, tv shows etc. – by doing actual reporting. Finally, I’d argue that the emergence of Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, and Keith Olbermann suggests that liberals are at least beginning to rectify some of the ideological imbalances you’re pointing out.

Look, I think the whole left-wing media bias criticism is overblown and kind of silly, but I do find the ideological uniformity of JournoList a bit unsettling. It’s more of an uneasy feeling than a full-blown criticism.

Two wrongs, as they say, don’t make a right. I also think that print journalists are unique in the sense that they frequently set the agenda for downstream media – blogs, tv shows etc. – by doing actual reporting. Moreover, I’d argue that the emergence of Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, and Keith Olbermann suggests that liberals are at least beginning to rectify some of the ideological imbalances you’re pointing out.

Look, I think the whole left-wing media bias criticism is overblown and kind of silly, but I do find the ideological uniformity of JournoList a bit unsettling. It’s more of an uneasy feeling than a full-blown criticism.

don’t you think it’s a little disturbing that all this totally mundane media interaction is dominated by liberals? I certainly understand the utility of a listserv, but the fact that mainstream journalists are so much closer to liberal pundits than their conservative competitors is a bit worrying.

Worrying? I don’t know, I’m not any more worried now than I was before I read the article (although I suppose I’d heard about Journolist before). Like Ramesh said, there’s already ample evidence of where most print and TV journalists are politically.